The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-31
PARTISAN QUESTION

a EAhliCAN QUhO11OH.
The argument in the case of Smith vs. Rob
ertson has closed, and the case is now in the
hands of the Supreme Court There are some
aspects of the case which make it conspicu
GUS, and will cause it to be memorable in the
judicial annals Of the State. 1t is preemi-
nently a partisan proceeding. In this respect
it has no parallel. The books furnish prece-
dents bearing on some of the questions in
volved (and, by the way, they are pretty much
all in favor of the Republican position), but
they furnish no parallel to the case itself.
There have been many cases of contested cleo
tons in the courts of this and other
States, but never before a case where
suit was brought for the possession of an
elective Office by person who was not a can
didate and did not receive vote, against one
who received 233 900 votes, and was elected by
| over three thousand plurality on total vote
of nearly five hundred thousand. This is not
| case where there might pc an honest differ
| ence of opinion as to who was the choice of
| the people. If it were, John G. Nelson would
| be plaintiff, instead of Green Smith. But
Mr.. Nelson, like Colonel Robertson, labors
under the disability of having been voted for
by the people, The fitness of this case re-
name of person whose name does not appear
in the original record, and whose claim stands
alone in the history of popular government.
But not only are the claimant
and the claim in this peculiar;
the political surroundings of the case, the
motives that have prompted it, the methods
pursued the ends aimed at the coarse, brutal,
1 illegal and supplementary measures adopted,
are all equally without parallel. 1t has been,
from beginning to end, grossly partisan pro-
ceeding, brazen attempt to steal an elective
Office, and accomplish by foul means what the
Democratic party failed to do by fair. If
Mr.. Nelson had been elected last fall by no
matter how small majority, no Republican
would have thought of questioning his right
to the Office nor would any Democrat have
thought Of questioning the legality Of the
election. The present proceeding is a partisan
job, that and nothing more.
By series of legal fictions and false pretenses
its managers have finally got it into the Su-
preme Court. We re gard it as very unfortun-
ate for the court that it is there 1t would
not be there if the maxim were enforced that
he who seeks equity must do equity, and must
come into court with clean hands In this
case the plaintiff comes into court with stolen
! goods in his hands and asks for an enabling
decision that he may take advantage Of his
own wrong We say it is unfortunate for the
court that the case is there; fol no matter
what the decision may be- the judicial robes
cannot escape being dragged into partisan po
: litical discussion. Already, when one decis
ion in the preliminary proceedings did no
suit, the Democratic State organ outraged al
propriety by saying of the judges: 'Dam,
their cowardly souls" This is polit
ical case, and the decision of tn
court will be and must be political
If right, there will be some who will again ex
claim Damn their cowardly souls" and i
wrong, it will be reversed by the people, an,
the court will receive vote Of censure TIL
people are higher than the courts, and the,
, thoroughly understand the merits of the case
!, They cannot be fooled, and will not be trifie
, with The history of partisan decisions show
that they invariably injure the party and tn
> cause they intend to benefit, and the court Q
Judge that renders them. The popular Wi
: cannot be thwarted, nor the popular vote
t stifed by partisan decision of any court
e The people may yield perfunctory obedienc
to such decision for the time, but at th
first opportunity they will right the wron
s and put the stamp of their condemnatio
e upon the prostitution of the Judicial functio
t to the aid of mere partisanship.
] THE DUTIES OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Or.
During Senator farrison's argument in til